RECEIVE’L)
BEFORETHE
POSTAL RATE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20268~001
sEp g
3 551RH ‘96
po$,r*1Pd,EcmWiSSI@H
OF~,,~~ CJFTttc SECRETARY
1I
SPECIALSERVICE!~REFORM, 1996
“I (1’
Docket No. MC96-3
NOTICE OF ERRATA TO RESPONSES OF WITNESS NEEDHAM TO
TO INTERROGATORIES OF THE OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE
(OCAIUSPS-T8-8, -15, -42, AND 43)
The Postal Service hereby gives notice of errata to the responsefs of witness
Needham to interlrogatories OCAIUSPS-TB-8 (revised August 15, 1996), -15,42,
and -43
Upon further review, it has been determined that the proposed certified mail cost coverage
in Docket No. R90-1 that witness Needham reported in her response to interrogatop(
OCA/USPS-T8-8,
filed prior to the filing of an erratum on August 15, 1996, was correct,
since that figure was calculated using certified mail revenues and costs exclusive of
ancillary service revenue and costs. The erratum filed on August 15, 1996 to witness
Needham’s response to OCAIUSPS-T8-8,
however, rests on the premise that ancillary
service costs were included in the proposed certified mail costs which were used to
determine the certified mail cost coverage. That notice of erratum is effectively withdrawn
with the filing of this notice. Corresponding changes are made to witness Needham’s
responses to OCAIUSPS-TB-15,42
(page 2), and -43. Revised copies are attached,
Respectfully submitted,
UNITED STATES POSTALSiRVlCE
By its attorneys:
Daniel J. Foucheaux,
Chief Counsel
475 L’Enfant Plaza West, SW.
Washington, D.C. 20260-1137
September 9,1996
OCAIUSPS-TB-8 page 2 of 2
Revised September 9, 1996
RESF’ONSE OF U.S. POSTAL SERVICE WITNESS NEEDHAM
TO INTERROGATORIES
OF THE OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER .ADVOCATE
methodology
applied by the Postal Service in this proceeding.
The (certified mail
cost coverages in Table I of the question are inflated because they are
calculated with ancillary service revenues.
I have accordingly backed out the
ancillary service revenue from certified mail revenue in the revised tiable below.
Table I (Revised)
Certified Mail ($ millions)
Revenue
cost
Docket No, RI30
3
;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>l,w,
i,I, 188.4
Postal Service
.;<,.:
,.,~
,.,.,,,
,.,.
Z&.::*.,-r~,..l,l.,..~.:..,~,~.1.
,~Y#%
I~?;:.>.~
.;,*,
,.,,,
Docket No. R94
293.2
Postal Service
305.8
Docket No. MC96-3
416.7
Postal Service”
285.9
*Source: Exhibit USPS-T-l C
Coverage
9696
146%
Table II
Return Receipt ($ millions)
cost
Docket No. R!90
158.8
Postal Service
Docket No. R94
178.0
Postal Service
Docket No. MC96-3
214.0
Postal Service’
*Source: Exhibit USPS-T-IC
Revenue
Coverage
191.9
12’1%
236.8
133%
365.6
17.1%
Revised September 9, 1996
RESPONSE OF U.S. POSTAL SERVICE WITNESS NEEDHAM
TO INTERROGATORIES
OF THE OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER ADVOCA,TE
OCAAJSPS-T8-15.
In Docket No. R94-1 the Postal Service proposed and the
Commission recommended a 10.2 percent rate increase for certified mail. This
increased the certified mail fee from $1 .OOto $1 .I 0. Assuming implementation
of the Postal Service’s proposal in this proceeding, the certified mai’l fee will have
increased by !50 percent by the next omnibus rate case. Other than instances
where the Commission recommended substantial rate increases to cover
attributable costs, are you aware of any instance since Docket No. 1~84-1 where
the Postal Service proposed, or the Commission recommended, a 50 percent
rate increase for a class, subclass or special service? Please identiify all
instances.
RESPONSE:
Certain post office box fees were increased by more than 50 percent following
Docket No. R90-1. I must also note that I know of no instance since Docket INo.
R90-1 where the coverage for certified mail has exceeded 100%.
--
----
~-__~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document iupon all
participants of record in this proceeding in accordance with section 12 of the Rules of
Practice.
&lzi$&-, 3; IL+-Anthony F. Alverd
475 CEnfant Plaza West, SW.
Washington, D.C. 20260-1137
September 9, 1996